Kerala Court September 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Ker)697; [1999]240ITR47(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1978-79 for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal at the time of passing the order of penalty, the penalty order is barred by limitation ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that no penalty is leviable in the case of negative income ?'3. The facts as briefly, found by the Appellate Tribunal are that the asses-see--a dealer in cashew and running a toddy shop--filed return of income on March 25, 1998 showing loss at Rs. 10,08,764. The assessee offered net income from toddy business at Rs. 5,000 on estimate. The net income was, however, assessed at Rs. 75,000 from the toddy shop. Subsequently, the assessee was called upon to file a cash ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N. Emshnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Ker)450
OM PRAKASH, C. J. Heard counsel for the parties.2. At the instance of the Revenue the Tribunal referred the following question relating to the asst. yr. 1978-79 for the opinion of this Court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal at the time of passing the order of, penalty, the penalty order is barred by limitation?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that no penalty is leviable in the case of negative income?'3. The facts, as briefly, found by the Tribunal are that the assessee-a dealer in cashew and running a toddy shop-filed return of income on 25th March, 1998 showing loss at Rs. 10,08,764. The assessee offered net income from toddy business at Rs. 5,000 on estimate. The net income was, however, assessed at Rs. 75,000 from the toddy shop. Subsequently the assessee was called upon to file a cash flow statement of the financial year 1977-...
Tag this Judgment!Baaji Govindan Vs. Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker31
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. Notice taken on behalf of contesting respondents 1 and 2, respondent No, 2 by Mr. Bechu Kurian Thomas and respondent No. 1 by Mr. Hari Kumar. We do not think it necessary to hear the third respondent, the Subordinate Judge's Court for the purpose of the disposal of this Writ Appeal. 2. The second respondent approached this court with the Original Petition praying for a declaration that he is also entitled to the amount due under the decree in O. P. (Arb) 170 of 1994 obtained against the first respondent Kerala State Housing Board, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Kerala State Housing Board and the Subordinate Judge's Court of Thiruvanantha-puram to disburse the amount due under the decree to him, the petitioner in the Original Petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Housing Board and the Subordinate Judge's Court not to disburse the amount for other consequential reliefs. According to the second respondent herein he was the par...
Tag this Judgment!A. Abdul Rahim and anr. Vs. Nazarullah and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker3
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This C.R.P. is filed challenging the order dated 3-8-1998 in I.A. 1858/1998 in O.S. 266/1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Courts Attingal. The petitioners arc the defendants in the case, while the respondents arc the plaintiffs. After the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. 1202 of 1997 for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or digging soil from therein for the purpose of making out any channel through the plaint schedule property and doing any acts to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs or doing rafting of husk in the water logged area or from causing any damage to the rafted husk in the water logged portions. An interim injunction was granted. Thereafter after hearing the defendants the order was confirmed. It seems, the defendants had also filed suit as O.S. 32/1997 and therein they had filed I.A. 164/1997 for temporary injunction. That was also heard along with I.A. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T.P. Balakrishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ950
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. These appeals are arising from a common award passed by M.A.C.T., Thalassery dated 28.11.1995 in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 809 and 810 of 1992. The insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is the appellant in both the appeals. Two persons who had sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 13.2.1992 filed applications for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them. The Tribunal after the enquiry awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000 with 12 per cent interest in O.P. (M.V.) No. 809 of 1992. Likewise in O.P. (M.V.) No. 810 of 1992 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 65,000 with 12 per cent interest. It further ordered that the owner of the vehicle shall be indemnified by the appellant insofar as the compensation awarded to the claimants. The insurer being aggrieved by the said direction, filed these appeals.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was violation of the permit conditions and, therefore, the insurer ...
Tag this Judgment!Amison Foods Limited and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas846(Ker)
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the accused in S.T. No. 80 of 1997 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, to quash the complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies.2. The respondent-Registrar of Companies filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 97(3) of the Companies Act on the ground that the petitioners herein failed to file Form No. 5 being the notice of increase of authorised share capital within 30 daysafter the passing of the resolution to increase the capital in terms of Section 97(1) of the Companies Act, with the prescribed fee and additional fee and therefore, they have committed the offence punishable under Section 97(3) of the Companies Act.3. The petitioners who are the accused before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, are the company, its chairman and managing director and its secretary, r...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC135; 1999ACJ1015
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Petitioner(s) in all these original petitions is the insurance company who figured as the respondent No. 3 in O.P. (MV) No. 804 of 1992 and connected cases which were disposed of by respondent No. 1, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery as per Exh. P-1 common award dated 28.11.1995 in favour of the respective claimants (who figure as respondent No. 2 in all these original petitions) to realise from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein-owner, driver and insurance company respectively-jointly and severally, payable by the petitioner insurance company the various sums mentioned therein with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation and with proportionate costs. Petitioner insurance company was directed to make payment by way of crossed D.D. or account payee cheque in the name of the respondent No. 2 claimant(s) and on such deposit the claimants were permitted to withdraw the same. Though Exh. P-1 common award deals with 10 pe...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Mathew Vs. Mrs. Maya Philip Alias Annama and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker192
ORDERK.A. Mohammed Shafi, J. 1. This petition is filed by a Christian husband under Sections 10 and 34 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the 1st respondent on the ground of her adultery after the marriage and for compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as damages from the 2nd respondent for the adultery committed by him. 2. The petitioner has also filed C.M.P. 12768/ 97 for custody of the minor child from the 1st respondent. 3. It is the common case that the petitioner and the 1st respondent belong to Syrian Christian community of Roman Catholic Sect and their marriage which was an arranged one was solemnized on 16-9-1990 at Vimalamatha Church, Kadalikkad according to Christian rites and ceremonies and after marriage they have been living together in the house of the petitioner. It is also admitted that a child was born in the wedlock on 9-8-1991 and after delivery the 1st respondent joined the petitioner at his residence in Thevara in early October, 1991. It is also...
Tag this Judgment!Chanthu Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4692
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of Shri Kalalhingal Musthafa (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') who has been detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the grounds of detention (Ext.P2) served along with the detention order dated 14-12-1997 it is stated that at about 6-30 p.m. on 30-7-1997 at Trivandrum International Airport one Mohammed Ali Abdullah was intercepted by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kozhikode when he was waiting to board the Air India Flight AI 913 to Abudhabi and examination of his suit-case led to recovery and seizure of foreign currencies kept concealed with the linings of the suit-case. On questioning he stated that the said suit case was handed over to him by one N.P. Zakkariah who had come to see him off and waiting outside the Airport. It was further stated that the above suit-case was entrusted to the above Zakk...
Tag this Judgment!Emmanuel Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN427(Ker)
Petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P4 and P6 orders and for a direction to refund to the petitioner the excess amount of tax collected from him on the basis of Ext. P4. The Commissioner refused to interfere with the assessment order on the following grounds :' 1. The applicant did not file an appeal against the assessment order dated 20-3-1996.2. The applicant came across the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to above only on or about 27/28-2-1998 when he found that the payment towards building fund of the Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd. has been allowed as a revenue expenditure.'The Commissioner also found that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in similar cases has not been accepted by the department. That apart, in my view, the matter is squarely covered by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536, wherein the Supreme Court held that the claim for refund based on the decision rendered in another ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »